what IS the secret of keeping people like Donald Trump out of office? — Bitter Crank

An educated electorate.

There are no black swans. — creativesoul

Can we not say that this is objectively false, but was believed to be objectively true? IOW, there is an objective/subjective distinction that is orthogonal to the true/false distinction.

Then we can be a bit more subtle, and say that "vanilla ice-cream is the best" has the form of an objective claim, but is usually intended subjectively, with a suppressed qualification of 'to me' or else, objectively, 'to most people'. But sometimes, such forms can be actually made simpliciter as objective claims, and then they strictly meaningless.

Thus when you claim as subjective truth, 'I like vanilla ice-cream best', I can still question the truth of it - 'But have you tried salted caramel?' In the same way as I can question the truth of 'There are no black swans' with 'Have you been to Australia?'

Bye, then.

Fantasy <> possibility. you'r literally trying to ontologize fantasy. — StreetlightX

Yes that's exactly what I'm doing. Fantasy is real in the sense that we really fantasise, and fantasy is efficacious in that it makes possible teleology. One can readily see the real effects of fantasy in the apocalyptic planning that is driving a lot of current politics. Ignore it at your peril, because fantasy burns witches on its way to Jerusalem the Golden.

Clearly it wasn't. — StreetlightX

Mercury, Pegasus, Daedalus, witches... to name but a few. And it's not equivocation; nature is blind to everything but the immediate, but human history simply is the realisation of fantasy under the guise of 'planning'.

Oh is that what it was about? The Sorcerer's Apprentice with his broomstick robots - a warning from mythology.

But there is especially the idea that the possible is less than the real, and that, for that reason, the possibility of things precedes their existence. They would thus be representable in advance; they could be thought before being realized. But it is the inverse that is the truth... — StreetlightX

I disagree with Bergson. Flying was dreamed of while it was impossible; seven league boots were dreamed when a horse was the limit of travel. What you want to call the impossible, or the not yet possible is represented in advance. I agree about politics - the only politics worth considering starts with "I have a dream..."

The business of the engineer and the architect is to concoct a realisable dream, to represent pre-present in plans and specifications the adjacent possible. The business of poets and shamans is to have more foresight and pre-present the impossible.

Sunflowers and mosquitoes and brains exist outside that circle of possibility." The idea of course is that they can be brought inside that circle of possibility after a certain level of evolutionary achievement has been reached — StreetlightX

I propose a name for that realm outside the circle of possibility - 'the circle of the fantastic'. It seems to me that myth and fairytale have explored this un-possible world, and civilisation is the process of realising the fantasies, from Mercury's winged Virgin sandals to Thor's intercontinental ballistic hammer. One facebook to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.

I actually read it, and I want my revenge on the world! I think it serves as an awful warning of the excesses of analysis. All that work, and then Wittgenstein blows the whole thing apart.

The meaning of meaning.

Before anyone uses the word 'meaning', they should have to read and at least summarise the above and stipulate which of the 16 or so philosophical meanings of meaning they mean.

Or possibly we can manage without such stipulations.

Sometimes another translation is illuminating by comparison. Legge is old-fashioned and clunky, but sticks more closely to what is there than some more poetic versions:

"Governing a great state is like cooking small fish.

Let the kingdom be governed according to the Tao, and the manes of
the departed will not manifest their spiritual energy. It is not that
those manes have not that spiritual energy, but it will not be
employed to hurt men. It is not that it could not hurt men, but
neither does the ruling sage hurt them.

When these two do not injuriously affect each other, their good
influences converge in the virtue (of the Tao)."

Manes? Beards? legacy? Perhaps it is the residue of resentment from old battles, old wrongs that is being considered. To oppose it is to reawaken it. Or as we philistines have it, 'don't pick your scabs.'

the artificial barrier — StreetlightX

Yes. Just as the engineer is 'in the end' still a bricoleur, so adaptation is, if we remove all traces of teleology, always exaptation - a novel use for the chemistry of carbon.

Isn't this what we used to call 'bricolage'?

The first sentence of the text is “Everyone will readily agree that it is of the highest importance to know whether we are not duped by morality.” My first thought was: no, I don’t “readily agree” to that. Because I don’t know what “duped by morality” means. — tinman917

Why make difficulties about this? I like to take a naive view that folks mean what is generally meant by the words they use, unless they go out of their way to redefine them, or problematise them. So I assume 'everyone agrees' is not a universal claim that you have disproved by withholding agreement, but an indication that what follows in uncontroversial and fairly simple. So morality is some conglomeration of strictures about how one ought to go on, that is current and seeks to impinge on one's life - such as 'you ought not beat your wife'. And one is duped if it is actually just fine, if not a solemn duty to beat one's wife. And if I have spent thirty years doing the wrong thing or depriving myself of a simple pleasure, thinking it was the right thing, that is a tragedy of the highest importance for me.

I don't know Levinas much, so I could be wrong, and if I read more, I would probably find out, and if I did turn out to be wrong, then I would feel it appropriate to fulminate about his lack of clarity.

if you don't want to get pregnant, and since being deliberately dumb means you don't take care of yourself and not caring for yourself means that you can't achieve the virtue you're capable of, then it is immoral to choose a minor intensification of pleasure instead of reliable methods of contraception. Even more so, if you're not willing to proceed with the pregnancy. — Πετροκότσυφας

The way driving is not immoral, but drunk driving is. Should we mandate third party insurance for casual sex?

Truth is the relationship between some state-of-affairs and some statement, explanation, or other representation of that state-of-affairs. Values are derived from having goals. — Harry Hindu

So truth is objective. And 'objectively true' is a tautology, like 'truly true'.

I asked God about this, and He said it pisses Him off too.

Any time you make a value statement, you are making a subjective statement. Any time you make a statement about some state-of-affairs, like your relationship with orange juice, then you are making an objective statement. — Harry Hindu

Ok. Would you say that truth is a value?

I've always assumed that 'objectively true' means true regardless of anyone's opinion/preferences.

That's why "X likes orange juice" is an objective claim. — ChrisH

I would have thought that the truth of 'X likes orange juice' was entirely dependent on X's preferences...

So...

1. 'Orange juice is delicious', is subjective.
2. 'I like orange juice' is objective.
3. 'Orange juice is delicious to me'... objective???

And yet, it would seem quite normal to me, if you asked me whether I liked orange juice, to reply 'Yes, it's delicious', without specifying that it is delicious to me but might not be to everyone. The fact that you asked me would suggest you already knew that.

Is it not objectively true that you like orange juice, or does it depend on who you ask? — Harry Hindu

Of course it depends who you ask. Some people will say "I don't like orange juice."

Whether or not you like orange juice is objectively true or false. — ChrisH

Whether or not you like orange juice depends on who I'm addressing. It is true or false in any particular case, give or take a bit of indifference, but what does it mean to be 'objectively true or false'? That is to say, what sorts of claim could be 'subjectively true or false'?

There's an old trope about 'the experience of red'. We agree to call this apple 'red' and that one 'green', but we cannot compare our experiences, only their structural consistency. We agree that this bus is red like the red apple, and this pair of pants is green like the green apple, but of the experience itself, we can say nothing, and this becomes the beetle in the box in later W. that falls out of the conversation.

So my mate Richard used to talk in the normal consistent way about green pants and red buses, and it was only when he applied to be a telephone engineer that he took one of those tests, and discovered he was red/green colour-blind. At which point, although he used the words 'red' and 'green' correctly, it became apparent that his experience of red and green was different. The only difference that showed, was his inability to read the numbers on those blobby graphics they use to test for colour-blindness. And that's all there was to say about it, except that the phone company didn't want him messing with their multi-coloured wiring system. What it is like to see red, or not to see red, no one can say, because one does not even know oneself, except by one's ability to use the word correctly.

Whatever our experiences, we can make up a word for them, so there is nothing we cannot talk about. And yet no amount of talk can capture the experience, so there is always a chasm between talk and world. We can talk about anything, but it will only ever be talk.

Logic, if you start with premises agreed upon, will always lead to the same conclusion. That's objectivity.

So, if there's any value in being subjective then it has to do with non-logical stuff. The rules of logic don't change and if you start with the same premises you reach the same conclusion. — TheMadFool

P1. I like orange juice.
P2. I drink what I like if it is available.
P3. Orange juice is available.
C. I drink orange juice.

Is this not a logical argument? Is it not also a subjective one?

No sane man would think himself capable of, or harbour any desire to, run the country. Having said that, I generally agree that one should not diagnose via the public media, but on the other hand, in loose way, it seems fair to resist the normalisation of insanity through the media. To say Trump is paranoid, aggressive and mean, erratic, outrageous and concerning (morally) is not to make a diagnosis, merely to suggest that one might want to make one.

Have you read Alice Miller?

I don't buy it. It is not mere fantasy or projection that we talk about a 'pecking order.'

I feel as though we're all talking about the same thing. Just that we're kind of confused about what it is. — Posty McPostface

Well they are related, but perhaps in some instances only as closely as a firedog is related to the canine species.

I am inclined to take a grammatical sense as the root of things. Of statements, a statement is subjective if it claims something about the person making it, and objective if it claims something about the rest of the world. 'I like orange juice' is a subjective statement, whereas 'Sam likes orange juice' is an objective one. (Note though that if I were to say 'unenlightened likes orange juice' it would be subjective statement in masquerade.)

From this purely grammatical root, I think it is possible to trace the way the use of the distinction becomes extended to cover all the other ways it has been used in the thread. And also how they can become terms of authority and dismissal.

Your post was a waste of time, since I already addressed what it is that you believe you have a problem with. — Harry Hindu

I rather agree, but for different reasons. It's not that I want to refute what you or any of the others are saying, rather I want to draw attention to the fact that people are talking about different things. Everyone is, like you, defending their own usage. What might count as objective knowledge can hardly be expected to fit the same criteria as an objective person, an objective view, an objective explanation and so on, though they may be related.

the fact in reality is separate from the concept fact, and it's separate from talk about those facts. — Sam26

Again, you liking for orange juice is also separate from any concept and talk. Fruit flies like orange juice, though they do not say so.

[Chiropractic Medicine is] glorified massage. If lawyers didn't need a way to "medically" document and treat subjective complaints of injury from car wrecks, there'd be no chiropractors. — Hanover

Shoutbox.

Patients have complaints, which are subjective (statements). Thus when Sam26 says "I like orange juice", it is a statement about the person making the statement. When Sam26's lawyer says "Sam26 likes orange juice", it is not a statement about the person making the statement, and at least purports to be objective. As such, we can consider his wife's testimony that he never drinks orange juice home to be significant. It may become less significant in the light of his lover's claim that his wife always buys cheap concentrate, and what he likes is fresh orange juice with juicy bits. And so on.

Subjective truths are dependent on minds, objective truths are not, — Sam26

Well there is a sense at least in which all truths are dependent on minds, to the extent that truth is a property of propositions, and propositions need proposers. I think you need stronger term than 'dependent on' - would you say that subjective truths are about (states of) mind? But even then, one can establish beyond reasonable doubt mens rea in a court of law.

And if one could not, it would become a beetle in a box. Oddly, the distinction as you are making it seems counter to Wittgenstein.

But what I wanted to draw attention town my first post was how very differently folks are using the terms, about knowledge, about attitudes, about explanations, about ways of being, about issues and so on.

"I like oranges," the truth of the statement is dependent on me, i.e., my likes and dislikes for example, and this is what makes it subjective. — Sam26

we could all cease to exist and the Earth would still have one moon. But if we all ceased to exist all subjective truths would simply be non-existent. — Sam26

If earths and moons ceased to exist, truths about earths and moons would cease to exist. If Sam did not exist, he would not have likes - what's the difference?

What did I leave out? — T Clark

Objects.

It is curious. One might ask, what sorts of things can be described as objective or subjective, and what sorts of things fall outside the scope of the dichotomy? The scope of the distinction surely has some bearing on its significance?

one is being objective or subjective. — Posty McPostface

On the face of it, it does not make sense to say of a subject, that it is objective. And yet...

subjective reporting: that which the patient themselves are reporting. O stands for Objective reporting: that which the Doctor observed of the patient — ArguingWAristotleTiff

... This is interesting, because one of the things the doctor observes is the subjective report of the patient. For example, it makes a difference to the doctor whether the patient indicates the location of the pain with a finger, a flat hand, or a fist. One might say that doctors are taught to objectify patients, such that their reports are treated as symptoms rather than communications. The doctor's reports are objective, and thus the doctor does not need to objectify himself, his observations are trained to be 'disinterested' and when he arrives at a diagnosis it is ...

An objective explanation — Harry Hindu

Which does not equate to infallible, of course, but to trained indifference, which is of course just the way of being that Posty started with. It is the business of a doctor to 'be objective', or to take an objective view.

an objective view is impossible — Harry Hindu

Damn, then there are no real doctors. Perhaps one can ameliorate the force of this a little, and say that an objective view is possible in at least some instances, though one can never be secure that one has taken the objective view in a particular instance.

Objective knowledge is... — Sam26

You deserve a better quote, Sam-I-am; it makes sense to divide knowledge into knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the object, and yet this is not what people have been wanting to refer to. So I will play hard-ball with you for a moment. Whatever is knowledge is true, and therefore objective.I can only know from what you tell me that you like orange juice, but if you are honest, I know the same thing that you know.

there are no truly objective issues. — T Clark

What's an issue? I'm inclined to agree with you to the extent that an issue has to be an issue for some subject that they are not indifferent to. But beware the 'truly' formation it invites complaints of 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

If God is real, he either doesn't care about spreading his message in the most accurate and well-received way as possible. Or, he plays favorites and only reveals his true message to certain people of specific religions and denominations. — chatterbears

Yes, He has revealed His true message to me, and to anyone who will listen:

Lo, and God spake unto them saying, "Play nice, children." But some of them pretended that they were His special favourites, and that He had said privily to them that He did not like those with ye carrot tops and spread like falsehoods about Him.

And low, He came down to Earth and declared that that was all bollocks, and all he wanted was for everyone to play nice together, and have ye good time, and in His own person He shewed it plain, that ye should continue to play nice even if they crucify you.

And though He showed it and said it many times, yet they continued to make up more bollocks, and low, Jesus bloody wept.

[

Why doesn't He tell us what he actually meant by these verses, and how to live by them? — chatterbears

I asked Him about this ages ago, and He explained it like this: "Life would be very dull if all the answers were given in advance, like a crossword puzzle that's already filled in." Thus saith the Lord.

Perhaps my religion tells me I should do my best to feed the hungry, heal the sick, comfort the suffering, abstain from greed, masturbation, abortion, violence, exploitation, and so on.

It does not follow that I will be in favour of making all or any of these virtues compulsory. That I think we ought to do X does not mean that I think the government ought to do X or mandate X. Thus sincere Christians can agree on morality but disagree on politics. They can be liberal about sexual conduct, and prescriptive about economic conduct, or vice versa.

Jesus healed the sick, therefore the government should provide disability benefits and a free health service. There is something missing from this argument.

Allegedly, the underground community of ‘guides’ has an code of ethics that excludes sexual contact. — praxis

Never trip with sexual predators, never trip with anyone who imagines they are part of an underground community of guides (that's the woo, right there), and never trip whilst paranoid. A trusted friend is who you need - accept no substitutes.

you could have responded in the propor thread — Tomseltje

I could. But I chose to respond here, because you used it as an example, and I think it is an example that plays against you. Arguing about what a vegan diet is would be a derailment of that thread. There is a history of usage in the context, that you ignore in favour of dictionary rigidity. And now you get all huffy. Ok dude, have your well defied discussion without me.

I simply don't believe you actually are confused about all definitions you asked for — Tomseltje

I simply don't believe you are confused about the definition of 'animal' in relation to a vegan diet. And if you are, then your contribution to a debate on the morality of diets is going to be rather limited, unless you can infer the meaning intended from the context of - for example - 'suffering', supplemented by a quick glance at some vegan recipes online.

In the end (and therefore why not in the beginning?), one has to assume that people know what words mean, and clear up ambiguities as they arise. Indeed, to insist on a definition is very often to close down the discussion before it begins. The abortion debate, for instance hangs on the definition of a 'person'. It is in just such boundary disputes that all the heavy lifting of philosophy takes place. Your definition of philosophy, for example, is highly contentious.

I'm interested to know what that failure looks like for you. — Janus

Well without getting too woo about it, one can benefit from escaping from one's habits of mind, but there's no point in making a habit of it. I think it is usually the loss of the habitual that is terrifying - the uptight are always controlling their anxiety with ritual that they identify with. But the odd thing about such drugs is that the loss of control is also largely an illusion, you're far more capable and in control on acid than alcohol, in terms of driving for instance though the sensation is the opposite. Also sex... I wonder what the consent issues are these days?

I would want my lawyer to present my case, not the truth, (unless they happened to be the same), but it is a poor lawyer that admits it is not the case that the case is the truth.

Have at it. Let us all know you're annoyed. — Hanover

:love: